scholarly journals The Fidelity of Training in Behaviour Change Techniques to Intervention Design in a National Diabetes Prevention Programme

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rhiannon E. Hawkes ◽  
Elaine Cameron ◽  
Lisa M. Miles ◽  
David P. French
Keyword(s):  
Behaviour Change ◽  
Diabetes Prevention ◽  
Prevention Programme ◽  
Behavioural Intervention ◽  
Behaviour Change Techniques ◽  
Behaviour Change Technique ◽  
Mandatory Training ◽  
Training Materials ◽  
Diabetes Prevention Programme ◽  
Materials Used

Abstract Background The National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS-DPP) is a behavioural intervention for people identified as high risk for developing type 2 diabetes that has been rolled out across England. The present study evaluates whether the four commercial providers of the NHS-DPP train staff to deliver behaviour change technique (BCT) content with fidelity to intervention plans. Method One set of mandatory training courses across the four NHS-DPP providers (seven courses across 13 days) was audio-recorded, and all additional training materials used were collected. Recordings and training materials were coded for BCT content using the BCT Taxonomy v1. BCTs and depth of training (e.g. instruction, demonstration, practice) of BCT content was checked against providers’ intervention plans. Results Ten trainers and 78 trainees were observed, and 12 documents examined. The number of unique BCTs in audio recordings and associated training materials ranged from 19 to 44 across providers, and staff were trained in 53 unique BCTs across the whole NHS-DPP. Staff were trained in 66% of BCTs that were in intervention plans, though two providers trained staff in approximately half of BCTs to be delivered. The most common way that staff were trained in BCT delivery was through instruction. Training delivery style (e.g. experiential versus educational) varied between providers. Conclusion Observed training evidences dilution from providers’ intervention plans. NHS-DPP providers should review their training to ensure staff are trained in all key intervention components, ensuring thorough training of BCTs (e.g. demonstrating and practicing how to deliver) to enhance BCT delivery.

scholarly journals The theoretical basis of a nationally implemented type 2 diabetes prevention programme: how is the programme expected to produce changes in behaviour?

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rhiannon E. Hawkes ◽  
Lisa M. Miles ◽  
David P. French
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Behaviour Change ◽  
Staff Training ◽  
Diabetes Prevention ◽  
Logic Model ◽  
Prevention Programme ◽  
Behaviour Change Techniques ◽  
Behavioural Changes ◽  
Diabetes Prevention Programme

Abstract Background It is considered best practice to provide clear theoretical descriptions of how behaviour change interventions should produce changes in behaviour. Commissioners of the National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS-DPP) specified that the four independent provider organisations must explicitly describe the behaviour change theory underpinning their interventions. The nationally implemented programme, launched in 2016, aims to prevent progression to Type 2 diabetes in high-risk adults through changing diet and physical activity behaviours. This study aimed to: (a) develop a logic model describing how the NHS-DPP is expected to work, and (b) document the behaviour change theories underpinning providers’ NHS-DPP interventions. Methods A logic model detailing how the programme should work in changing diet and activity behaviours was extracted from information in three specification documents underpinning the NHS-DPP. To establish how each of the four providers expected their interventions to produce behavioural changes, information was extracted from their programme plans, staff training materials, and audio-recorded observations of mandatory staff training courses attended in 2018. All materials were coded using Michie and Prestwich’s Theory Coding Scheme. Results The NHS-DPP logic model included information provision to lead to behaviour change intentions, followed by a self-regulatory cycle including action planning and monitoring behaviour. None of the providers described an explicit logic model of how their programme will produce behavioural changes. Two providers stated their programmes were informed by the COM-B (Capability Opportunity Motivation – Behaviour) framework, the other two described targeting factors from multiple theories such as Self-Regulation Theory and Self-Determination Theory. All providers cited examples of proposed links between some theoretical constructs and behaviour change techniques (BCTs), but none linked all BCTs to specified constructs. Some discrepancies were noted between the theory described in providers’ programme plans and theory described in staff training. Conclusions A variety of behaviour change theories were used by each provider. This may explain the variation between providers in BCTs selected in intervention design, and the mismatch between theory described in providers’ programme plans and staff training. Without a logic model describing how they expect their interventions to work, justification for intervention contents in providers’ programmes is not clear.

scholarly journals NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme in England: formative evaluation of the programme in early phase implementation

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e019467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Penn ◽  
Angela Rodrigues ◽  
Anna Haste ◽  
Marta M Marques ◽  
Kirsten Budig ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Qualitative Research ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Diabetes Prevention ◽  
Prevention Programme ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Behavioural Intervention ◽  
Diabetes Prevention Programme ◽  
Fidelity Assessment

ObjectivesEvaluation of the demonstrator phase and first wave roll-out of the National Health Service (NHS) Diabetes Prevention Programme (DPP) in England. To examine: (1) intervention design, provision and fidelity assessment procedures; (2) risk assessment and recruitment pathways and (3) data collection for monitoring and evaluation. To provide recommendations informing decision makers on programme quality, improvements and future evaluation.DesignWe reviewed programme documents, mapping against the NHS DPP specification and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) public health guideline: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) prevention in people at high risk (PH38), conducted qualitative research using individual interviews and focus group discussions with stakeholders and examined recruitment, fidelity and data collection procedures.SettingSeven NHS DPP demonstrator sites and, subsequently, 27 first wave areas across England.InterventionsIntensive behavioural intervention with weight loss, diet and physical activity goals. The national programme specifies at least 13 sessions over 9 months, delivered face to face to groups of 15–20 adults with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia, mainly recruited from primary care and NHS Health Checks.ParticipantsParticipants for qualitative research were purposively sampled to provide a spread of stakeholder experience. Documents for review were provided via the NHS DPP Management Group.FindingsThe NHS DPP specification reflected current evidence with a clear framework for service provision. Providers, with national capacity to deliver, supplied intervention plans compliant with this framework. Stakeholders highlighted limitations in fidelity assessment and recruitment and retention challenges, especially in reach and equity, that could adversely impact on implementation. Risk assessment for first wave eligibility differed from NICE guidance.ConclusionsThe NHS DPP provides an evidence-based behavioural intervention for prevention of T2D in adults at high risk, with capacity to deliver nationally. Framework specification allows for balance between consistency and contextual variation in intervention delivery, with session details devolved to providers. Limitations in fidelity assurance, data collection procedures and recruitment issues could adversely impact on intervention effectiveness and restrict evaluation.

scholarly journals Changing behaviour, ‘more or less’: do implementation and de-implementation interventions include different behaviour change techniques?

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea M. Patey ◽  
Jeremy M. Grimshaw ◽  
Jill J. Francis
Keyword(s):  
Behaviour Change ◽  
Implicit Theories ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Behaviour Change Techniques ◽  
Behaviour Change Technique ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Continuity Correction ◽  
Chi Squared ◽  
Clinician Behaviour ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Abstract Background Decreasing ineffective or harmful healthcare practices (de-implementation) may require different approaches than those used to promote uptake of effective practices (implementation). Few psychological theories differentiate between processes involved in decreasing, versus increasing, behaviour. However, it is unknown whether implementation and de-implementation interventions already use different approaches. We used the behaviour change technique (BCT) taxonomy (version 1) (which includes 93 BCTs organised into 12 groupings) to investigate whether implementation and de-implementation interventions for clinician behaviour change use different BCTs. Methods Intervention descriptions in 181 articles from three systematic reviews in the Cochrane Library were coded for (a) implementation versus de-implementation and (b) intervention content (BCTs) using the BCT taxonomy (v1). BCT frequencies were calculated and compared using Pearson’s chi-squared (χ2), Yates’ continuity correction and Fisher’s exact test, where appropriate. Identified BCTs were ranked according to frequency and rankings for de-implementation versus implementation interventions were compared and described. Results Twenty-nine and 25 BCTs were identified in implementation and de-implementation interventions respectively. Feedback on behaviour was identified more frequently in implementation than de-implementation (Χ2(2, n=178) = 15.693, p = .000057). Three BCTs were identified more frequently in de-implementation than implementation: Behaviour substitution (Χ2(2, n=178) = 14.561, p = .0001; Yates’ continuity correction); Monitoring of behaviour by others without feedback (Χ2(2, n=178) = 16.187, p = .000057; Yates’ continuity correction); and Restructuring social environment (p = .000273; Fisher’s 2-sided exact test). Conclusions There were some significant differences between BCTs reported in implementation and de-implementation interventions suggesting that researchers may have implicit theories about different BCTs required for de-implementation and implementation. These findings do not imply that the BCTs identified as targeting implementation or de-implementation are effective, rather simply that they were more frequently used. These findings require replication for a wider range of clinical behaviours. The continued accumulation of additional knowledge and evidence into whether implementation and de-implementation is different will serve to better inform researchers and, subsequently, improve methods for intervention design.

scholarly journals Breaking barriers: using the Behavior Change Wheel to develop a tailored intervention to overcome workplace inhibitors to breaking up sitting time

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samson O Ojo ◽  
Daniel P. Bailey ◽  
Marsha L. Brierley ◽  
David J. Hewson ◽  
Angel M. Chater
Keyword(s):  
Behaviour Change ◽  
Theoretical Domains Framework ◽  
Office Workers ◽  
Sitting Time ◽  
Mental Wellbeing ◽  
Behaviour Change Techniques ◽  
Tailored Intervention ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Behaviour Change Technique ◽  
Break Up

Abstract Background: The workplace is a prominent domain for excessive sitting. The consequences of increased sitting time include adverse health outcomes such as cardiovascular disease and poor mental wellbeing. There is evidence that breaking up sitting could improve health, however, any such intervention in the workplace would need to be informed by a theoretical evidence-based framework. The aim of this study was to use the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) to develop a tailored intervention to break up and reduce workplace sitting in desk-based workers. Methods: The BCW guide was followed for this qualitative, pre-intervention development study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 office workers (26-59 years, mean age 40.9 [SD=10.8] years; 68% female) who were purposively recruited from local council offices and a university in the East of England region. The interview questions were developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Transcripts were deductively analysed using the COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation – Behaviour) model of behaviour. The Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy Version 1 (BCTv1) was thereafter used to identify possible strategies that could be used to facilitate change in sitting behaviour of office workers in a future intervention. Results: Qualitative analysis using COM-B identified that participants felt that they had the physical Capability to break up their sitting time, however, some lacked the psychological Capability in relation to the knowledge of both guidelines for sitting time and the consequences of excess sitting. Social and physical Opportunity was identified as important, such as a supportive organisational culture (social) and the need for environmental resources (physical). Reflective and automatic Motivation was highlighted as a core target for intervention. Seven intervention functions and three policy categories from the BCW were identified as relevant. Finally, 39 behaviour change techniques (BCTs) were identified as potential active components for an intervention to break up sitting time in the workplace. Conclusions: The TDF, COM-B model and BCW can be successfully applied through a systematic process to understand the drivers of behaviour of office workers to develop a co-created intervention that can be used to break up and decrease prolonged sitting in the workplace.

scholarly journals Breaking barriers: using the Behavior Change Wheel to develop a tailored intervention to overcome workplace inhibitors to breaking up sitting time

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samson O Ojo ◽  
Daniel P. Bailey ◽  
Marsha L. Brierley ◽  
David J. Hewson ◽  
Angel M. Chater
Keyword(s):  
Behaviour Change ◽  
Theoretical Domains Framework ◽  
Office Workers ◽  
Sitting Time ◽  
Mental Wellbeing ◽  
Behaviour Change Techniques ◽  
Tailored Intervention ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Behaviour Change Technique ◽  
Break Up

Abstract Background: The workplace is a prominent domain for excessive sitting. The consequences of increased sitting time include adverse health outcomes such as cardiovascular disease and poor mental wellbeing. There is evidence that breaking up sitting could improve health, however, any such intervention in the workplace would need to be informed by a theoretical evidence-based framework. The aim of this study was to use the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) to develop a tailored intervention to break up and reduce workplace sitting in desk-based workers. Methods: The BCW guide was followed for this qualitative, pre-intervention development study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 office workers (26-59 years, mean age 40.9 [SD=10.8] years; 68% female) who were purposively recruited from local council offices and a university in the East of England region. The interview questions were developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Transcripts were deductively analysed using the COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation – Behaviour) model of behaviour. The Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy Version 1 (BCTv1) was thereafter used to identify possible strategies that could be used to facilitate change in sitting behaviour of office workers in a future intervention. Results: Qualitative analysis using COM-B identified that participants felt that they had the physical Capability to break up their sitting time, however, some lacked the psychological Capability in relation to the knowledge of both guidelines for sitting time and the consequences of excess sitting. Social and physical Opportunity was identified as important, such as a supportive organisational culture (social) and the need for environmental resources (physical). Reflective and automatic Motivation was highlighted as a core target for intervention. Seven intervention functions and three policy categories from the BCW were identified as relevant. Finally, 39 behaviour change techniques (BCTs) were identified as potential active components for an intervention to break up sitting time in the workplace. Conclusions: The TDF, COM-B model and BCW can be successfully applied through a systematic process to understand the drivers of behaviour of office workers to develop a co-created intervention that can be used to break up and decrease prolonged sitting in the workplace.

scholarly journals Mixed methods pilot study of a low-carbohydrate diabetes prevention programme among adults with pre-diabetes in the USA

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e033397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dina Hafez Griauzde ◽  
Laura Saslow ◽  
Kaitlyn Patterson ◽  
Tahoora Ansari ◽  
Bradley Liestenfeltz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Weight Loss ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Weight Change ◽  
Diabetes Prevention ◽  
Prevention Programme ◽  
Diabetes Prevention Programme ◽  
Low Carbohydrate ◽  
The Usa

Objectives(1) To estimate weight change from a low-carbohydrate diabetes prevention programme (LC-DPP) and (2) to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of an LC-DPP.Research designSingle-arm, mixed methods (ie, integration of quantitative and qualitative data) pilot study.SettingPrimary care clinic within a large academic medical centre in the USA.ParticipantsAdults with pre-diabetes and Body Mass Index of ≥25 kg/m2.InterventionWe adapted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Diabetes Prevention Program (NDPP)—an evidence-based, low-fat dietary intervention—to teach participants to follow a very low-carbohydrate diet (VLCD). Participants attended 23 group-based classes over 1 year.Outcome measuresPrimary outcome measures were (1) weight change and (2) percentage of participants who achieved ≥5% wt loss. Secondary outcome measures included intervention feasibility and acceptability (eg, attendance and qualitative interview feedback).ResultsOur enrolment target was 22. One person dropped out before a baseline weight was obtained; data from 21 individuals were analysed. Mean weight loss in kilogram was 4.3 (SD 4.8) at 6 months and 4.9 (SD 5.8) at 12 months. Mean per cent body weight changes were 4.5 (SD 5.0) at 6 months and 5.2 (SD 6.0) at 12 months; 8/21 individuals (38%) achieved ≥5% wt loss at 12 months. Mean attendance was 10.3/16 weekly sessions and 3.4/7 biweekly or monthly sessions. Among interviewees (n=14), three factors facilitated VLCD adherence: (1) enjoyment of low-carbohydrate foods, (2) diminished hunger and cravings and (3) health benefits beyond weight loss. Three factors hindered VLCD adherence: (1) enjoyment of high-carbohydrate foods, (2) lack of social support and (3) difficulty preplanning meals.ConclusionsAn LC-DPP is feasible, acceptable and may be an effective option to help individuals with pre-diabetes to lose weight. Data from this pilot will be used to plan a fully powered randomised controlled trial of weight loss among NDPP versus LC-DPP participants.Trial registration numberNCT03258918.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document